The court affirmed the necessity of just compensation in motor accident claims, allowing for adjustments based on reasonable income estimates and future prospects.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the first respondent in O.P.(M.V) No. 1497 of 2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam.

2. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle and he is challenging the order permitting the 3rd respondent insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle after payment to the petitioners and also the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal as not fair and reasonable.

3. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Vincent, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.06.2012. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent was the insurer.

4. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked from the side of the petitioners and from the side of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked.

5. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent driver of the vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,24,875/- to the petitioners.

6. The third respondent insurance company was also permitted to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle after payment to the petitioners on the ground that the 2nd respondent was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.

7. Heard both sides and perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the 2nd respondent was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was driven by one Unnikrishnan and the said Unnikrishnan was having a valid driving licence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is liable to be set aside.

9. In paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle, it is stated as follows:

“The contentions raised in the above application are not true. It is submitted that the vehicle was being driven by one Mr. Unnikrishnan, S/o. Bharathan, Mundopadam Veedu, Cheranelloor P.O., Cochin - 682 034 at the time of accident. The injured was taken to the hospital by said Unnikrishnan only. But the police upon the statement of said Unnikrishnan that the 2nd respondent was the usual driver of the mini lorry involved in the accident and in collusion with him, without proper investigation, made the 2nd respondent as accused in the Crime No. 5746/2012. It is informed that the 2nd respondent also made complaint informing the actual facts to the investigating officer and the CI of police in wrongly making him as accused in the above Crime. Therefore, the above application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.â€

10. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not disclosed as to who was the driver engaged by him and what exactly was the relationship between him and the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident. A perusal of Exhibit A2 charge sheet filed by the police after investigation shows that the 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC in connection with the occurrence and that a petty case was registered against the owner of the vehicle for engaging the 2nd respondent who was not having a valid driving licence for driving the vehicle.

11. Before the Tribunal, the appellant herein is examined as RW1 and in chief examination, he reiterated the contentions in the written statement. In cross examination, RW1 admitted that the police filed charge sheet against the 2nd respondent. It is pertinent to note that the appellant is not a witness to the occurrence and therefore, his evidence that it was not the 2nd respondent who driven the vehicle at the time of accident cannot be relied upon to record a finding against Exhibit A2 charge sheet filed by the police after investigation.

12. The 2nd respondent is examined as RW2. In chief examination, RW2 stated that he